200 [242 T. G. WATKINS r, MADGE WATKINS 5 4150 412 S. W. 2d 600 Opinion delivered March 20, 1967 APPEAL & ERROR-BILL OF REVIEW-TIME FOR FILING.-A bill of review to obtain modification of a divorce decree for error supposedly apparent on the face of the record, which was filed after expiration of the time for filing an appeal [30 days under Ark, Stat. Ann. ยง 27-2601.1] was filed too late and was correctly dismissed by the chancellor. Appeal from Union Chancery Court, Second Divi sion, Claude E. Lore, Chancellor: affirmed. noel, le foi il & Shad. lrford, for appellant. Buryl -Antho p y 1i., for -a ppellec.--- GEORGE ROSE SMITH, .Tustice. The. only question upon this appeal is whether a hill of review to obtain a modification of a divorce decree can be filed after the expiration of the time for app.?al. The chancellor dismissed the bill, holding that it was filed too late. The appellee obtained a divorce on September 8, 1965. The parties owned two tracts of land as tenants by the entirety. The decree awarded one to the appellee and the other to the appellant. On April 19, 1966, the chancellor, in response to a petition for clarification filed by the appellant's original attorney, entered a supplemental decree directing the parties to put the initial decree into effect by an exchange of deeds. There was no appeal from either decree. On June 9, 1966, the appellant, by his present counsel, filed a bill of review asserting that the court had acted beyond its authority in awarding to the appellee a tract owned by the entirety. The bill, as later amended, asked that the two decrees be amended by the deletior,
ARK.] 201 of the provision in question. The chancellor, as we have said, dismissed the bill of review. Under our bolding , in Pales v. Holland, 187 Ark. 550, 60 S. W. 2d 1029 (1933), the chancellor was right. There we held that a bill of review sueh as this one, for error supposedly apparent on the face of the record, must be filed within the time allowed for an appeal. We pointed out that if the rule were otherwise, "it would follow that an original decree might in effect be brought before the Supreme Court for re-examination after the period prescribed by law for an immediate appeal. . . In other words, the party complaining of the original decree would, in this 'way, be permitted to do indirectly what the statute has prohibited him from doing directly." The time allowed for filing the notice of appeal is now thirty days after the entry of the decree. Ark. Stat. Ann. 27-2106.1 ; Pinnacle Old Live Ins. Co. v. Ellis, 228 Ark. 458, 307 S. W. 2d 882 (1957). Hence the present bill of review was filed out of time. Affirmed.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.